Whilst this is easy to demonstrate mathematically, though, it is much harder to accept emotionally. The reason most of us choose non-sequential numbers when entering a lottery – rather than, say, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 – is that the non-rational part of our brain believes that, if a lottery is the random drawing of numbers, then the outcome is more likely to look random; forgetting, of course, that the mathematical probability of any six numbers being drawn is just as likely as any other.

Monte Carlo Roulette 1913 Full

Roulette The alternative term “Monte Carlo fallacy” originates from a famous anecdote about the phenomenon, which occurred in a game of roulette at the Monte Carlo Casino on August 18, 1913, 9 when the ball fell in black 26 times in a row. Monte Carlo decreases with the inverse of particle his- tories, particle splitting and Russian roulette tech- niques are used in TRIPOS. The importance zone is taken to be the first few atomic layers where most of the sputtered particles orginate. The analog Monte Carlo code TRIPOS is.

Few of us, then, can honestly say that we wouldn’t be drawn to similar conclusions if stood in that Monte Carlo casino. Humans seem to be predisposed to neglect rational probability.

For example, in a series of experiments by Sunstein and Zeckhauser, subjects consistently ignored probability in their decision making, especially when they were presented with possible emotional outcomes. When asked how much money they would be prepared to spend to eliminate a cancer-risk in drinking water, participants showed little sensitivity to whether that risk was 1/100,000 or 1/1,000,000, especially when cancer was described in emotive terms.

Monte Carlo Roulette 1913 Game

This human predisposition to ignore probability should terrify anyone who wants to become a profitable punter. After all, probability underpins every decision a gambler makes. Successful punters are those who are aware of this cognitive bias and constantly check their thinking to ensure they are acting rationally.

Monte Carlo Sale

Take this scenario. Two punters visit the greyhound track. Trap One wins the first race. Trap Two wins the second. Trap One again the third. Punter A spots a pattern – there must be a track bias favouring an inside draw – and starts betting accordingly. Punter B doesn’t and continues to use whatever selection method they had used previously. Who is most likely to be profitable?

Monte Carlo Roulette 1913

The answer, of course, is that we don’t know. Punter A may turn out to be right. However, to change his punting based on such sparse information is ridiculous: just like on the roulette wheel and in a lottery, a clustering of results – especially in small samples – will happen frequently.